14-556 bay area lawyers for individual freedom

8/9/2019 14-556 Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom

1/53

Nos. 14-556, 14-562, 14-571 & 14-574

IN THE

Supreme ourt of the United States

————

J AMES OBERGEFELL, ET AL., AND BRITTANI HENRY , ET AL.,

PETITIONERS,

v.

RICHARD HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OFHEALTH, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

————

V ALERIA T ANCO, ET AL., PETITIONERS,

v.

WILLIAM EDWARD “BILL” H ASLAM, GOVERNOR OFTENNESSEE, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

———— A PRIL DEBOER, ET AL., PETITIONERS,

v.

RICK SNYDER, GOVERNOR OF MICHIGAN, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

————

GREGORY BOURKE, ET AL., AND TIMOTHY LOVE, ET AL.,PETITIONERS,

v.

STEVE BESHEAR, GOVERNOR OF K ENTUCKY , ET AL.,RESPONDENTS.

————

On Writs of Certiorari to theUnited States Court of Appeals

for the Sixth Circuit

————

BRIEF OF BAY AREA LAWYERS FOR INDIVIDUALFREEDOM, ET AL. AS AMICI CURIAE

SUPPORTING PETITIONERS

————

JEROME C. ROTH

Counsel of Record

A MELIA L.B. S ARGENT

MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP

560 Mission Street 27th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94105

[email protected]

(415) 512-4000

WILSON-EPES PRINTING CO., INC. – (202) 789-0096 – W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20002

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/53

TABLEOFCONTENTS

P AGE

InterestOfAmiciCuriae.................................................. 1

SummaryOfArgument................................................... 2

Argument.......................................................................... 4

I. ItIsTheProvinceAndDutyOfThisCourtTo

HoldThatTheMarriageBansViolateThe

EqualProtectionClause............................................ 4

A. ClassificationsThatAreIntendedOnlyTo

DisadvantageAGroupOfPeopleFailEven

RationalBasisReview.......................................... 4

B. ItIsUniquelyTheProvinceOfTheCourts

ToDecideTheEqualProtectionChallenge

ToTheMarriageBans.......................................... 5

II. ExcludingSameSexCouplesFromThe

InstitutionOfMarriageHarmsGayAnd

LesbianIndividuals,TheirFamilies,AndTheir

Children ....................................................................... 9

A. MarriageIsAUniquelyRevered

InstitutionInAmericanSociety.......................... 9

B. ExclusionFromMarriageCausesTangible

Harm....................................................................14

1. HarmToChildren.........................................14

2. LegalAndEconomicHarm..........................19

3. EmotionalAndPhysicalHarm....................22

C. TheMarriageBansCommunicate

GovernmentalAnimusTowardSameSex

Relationships .......................................................23

1. TheMarriageBansStigmatizeSame

SexRelationships ..........................................24

(I)


3/53

II

2. TheMarriageBans’StigmaPerpetuates

SocietalDiscriminationAgainstGay

MenAndLesbians.........................................27

Conclusion.......................................................................30

Appendix– ListofAmiciCuriae..................................1a

TABLEOFAUTHORITIES

FEDERALC ASES P AGE(S)

Baskin v. Bogan,

766F.3d648(7thCir.2014).....................passim

Bostic v. Schaefer,760F.3d352(4thCir.2014)............................... 3

Brown v. Board of Education,

347U.S.483(1954)............................................. 2

City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center,

473U.S.432(1985).............................4,5,17,26

Eisenstadt v. Baird,

405U.S.438(1972)............................................. 5

Griswold v. Connecticut,

381U.S.479(1965)........................................... 10

Kitchen v. Herbert,755F.3d1193(10th Cir.2014)...........................2

Latta v. Otter,

771F.3d456(9thCir.2014)......................... 3,17

Lawrence v. Texas,

539U.S.558(2003)..................................... 22,28

Loving v. Virginia,

388U.S.1(1967)................................... 4,8,9, 10


4/53

III

Marbury v. Madison,

5U.S.(1Cranch)137(1803)..............................6

Mayers v. Ridley,

465F.2d630(D.C.Cir.1972) ............................. 8 Perry v. Schwarzenegger,

704F.Supp.2d921(N.D.Cal.2010)...............27

Plessy v. Ferguson,

163U.S.537(1896)............................................. 2

Reynolds v. Sims,

377U.S.533(1964).........................................7,8

Romer v. Evans,

517U.S.620(1996)...................................passim

SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Abbott

Laboratories,

740F.3d471(9thCir.2014)............................... 4 Strauder v. West Virginia,

100U.S.303(1879)..................................... 23,28

Taylor v. Louisiana,

419U.S.522(1975)........................................... 24

Turner v. Safley,

482U.S.78(1987)............................................. 10

United States v. Virginia,

518U.S.515(1996)........................................... 30

United States v. Windsor,

133S.Ct.2675(2013)...............................passimUnited States Department of Agriculture v.

Moreno,

413U.S.528(1973)....................................... 5,27West Virginia State Board of Education v.

Barnette,

319U.S.624(1943)............................................. 7


5/53

IV

Williams v. North Carolina,

317U.S.287(1942)........................................... 10

STATEC ASES

Garden State Equality v. Dow,

79A.3d1036(N.J.2013)...................................21

Goodridge v. Department of Public Health,

798N.E.2d941(Mass.2003)..........10,11,15,25

In re Marriage Cases,

183P.3d 384(Cal.2008)....................... 24,25,28

Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health,

957A.2d407(Conn.2008)................9,14,15, 25

Perez v. Lippold,

198P.2d17(Cal.1948)..................................... 10 Varnum v. Brien,

763N.W.2d862(Iowa2009).......................11, 12

CONSTITUTIONALPROVISIONS

Ky.Const.§233A...................................................26

Mich.Const.art.I,§25..........................................26

OhioConst.art.XV,§11.......................................26

Tenn.Const.art.XI,§18.......................................26

U.S.Const.amend.XIV,§1....................................4

STATESTATUTES

Haw.Rev.Stat.§ 572B(2014)............................... 12

Haw.Rev.Stat.§ 572C2(2014)............................ 12

Tenn.CodeAnn.§363113(2014)........................26


6/53

V

A DMINISTRATIVEREGULATIONS

Rev.Rul.201317,201338I.R.B.201...................20

OTHER A UTHORITIES

JeffreyM.Adams&WarrenH.Jones,The

Conceptualization of Marital Commitment:

An Integrative Analysis,72J.Personality

Soc.Psychol.1177(1997)..................................11

M.V.LeeBadgett,The Economic Value of

Marriage for SameSex Couples,58Drake

L.Rev.1081(2010).....................................19,21

RobertA.Burt, Belonging in America: How to

Understand SameSex Marriage,25BYUJ.Pub.L.351(2011).......................................10,11

KimChandler, Alabama Set to Become 37 th

State to Allow Gay Marriage,Associated

Press,Feb.7,2015,available at

http://news.yahoo.com/gaymarriage -

arrivesalabama183946121.html....................28

LisaC.Connolly, AntiGay Bullying in

Schools—Are AntiBullying Statutes the

Solution?,87N.Y.U.L.Rev.248(2012)...........23

NancyF.Cott, Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation (2000)................. 29,30

AshleyFantz, An Ohio Transgender Teen’s

Suicide; A Mother’s Anguish,Jan.4,2015,

CNN,

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/31/us/ohio -

transgenderteensuicide/.................................23

http://news.yahoo.com/gay-marriagehttp://www.cnn.com/2014/12/31/us/ohiohttp://news.yahoo.com/gay-marriagehttp://www.cnn.com/2014/12/31/us/ohio


7/53

VI

AdamW.Fingerhutetal., Identity, Minority Stress and Psychological WellBeing Among

Gay Men and Lesbians,1Psychol.&

Sexuality101(2010).........................................22GaryJ.Gates,WilliamsInstitute,UCLA

SchoolofLaw, LGBT Parenting in the

United States (2013),

http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp -

content/uploads/lgbtparenting.pdf..................16

GilbertHerdt&RobertKertzner, I Do, But I

Can’t: The Impact of Marriage Denial on

the Mental Health and Sexual Citizenship

of Lesbians and Gay Men in the United

States,3J.SexualityRes.Soc.Pol’y33

(2006).................................................................22

GregoryM.Hereketal.,Correlates of

Internalized Homophobia in a Community

Sample of Lesbians and Gay Men,2J.Gay

&LesbianMed.Ass’n17(1997)................. 22,23

RobinA.Lenhardt,Understanding the Mark:

Race, Stigma, and Equality in Context,79

N.Y.U. L.Rev.803(2004)................................. 29

IlanH.Meyer, Prejudice, Social Stress, and

Mental Health in Lesbian, Gay and

Bisexual Populations: Conceptual Issuesand Research Evidence,129Psychol.Bull.

674(2003) .......................................................... 22

http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wphttp://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp


8/53

VII

NewJerseyCivilUnionReviewCommission,The Legal, Medical, Economic & Social

Consequences of New Jersey’s Civil Union

Law (Dec.10,2008),http://www.nj.gov/lps/dcr/downloads/CURC

FinalReport.pdf.......................................15,16

OfficeofPersonnelManagement,Coverage of

Same–Sex Spouses,No.13203(July17,

2013),http://www.opm.gov/retirement-

services/publicationsforms/benefits-

administrationletters/2013/13203.pdf...........20

JamesG.Pawelskietal.,The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic

Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-

being of Children, 118Pediatrics349

(2006).................................................................15

MarcR.Poirier, Name Calling: Identifying Stigma in the “Civil Union”/“Marriage”

Distinction,41Conn.L.Rev.1425(2009)........29

ElizabethS.Scott, Social Norms and the Legal

Regulation of Marriage,86Va.L.Rev.

1901(2000) ........................................................ 10

ThomasB.Stoddard,Why Gay People Should

Seek the Right to Marry,Out/Look:Nat’l

Gay&LesbianQ.,Fall1989............................12USCIS, Same Sex Marriages,

http://www.uscis.gov/family/samesex -

marriages(lastupdatedApr.3,2014).............21

EvanWolfson,Why Marriage Matters:

America, Equality, and Gay People’s Right

to Marry (2004)............................................13,14

http://www.nj.gov/lps/dcr/downloads/CURChttp://www.opm.gov/retirementhttp://www.uscis.gov/family/same-sexhttp://www.nj.gov/lps/dcr/downloads/CURChttp://www.opm.gov/retirementhttp://www.uscis.gov/family/same-sex


9/53

INTERESTOFAMICICURIAE1

BayAreaLawyersforIndividualFreedom(BALIF)isabarassociationofmorethan600 lesbian,gay,bi-

sexual,and transgender (LGBT) members oftheSanFranciscoBayArealegalcommunity. Asthenation’soldest and largestLGBTbar association,BALIF pro-motestheprofessionalinterestsofitsmembersandthelegal interests of the LGBT community at large. Toaccomplishthismission,BALIFactivelyparticipatesinpublic policy debates concerning the rights of LGBTindividualsandfamilies.BALIFfrequentlyappearsasamicus curiae incases,likethisone,whereitbelievesitcanprovidevaluableperspectiveandargumentthatwill informcourtdecisionsonmattersofbroadpublic

importance. Additionalamici includeabroadarrayoforganiza-

tions,includingstate,metropolitan,local,andminoritybar associations and nonprofit organizations. Eachorganizationsupportingthisamicus briefisdedicatedtoensuringthatitsconstituentsandallothersinthiscountry,includinggaymenandlesbians,receiveequaltreatmentunderthelaw. See App.,infra,1a14a.

1Nocounselforapartyauthoredthisbriefinwholeorinpart,and no such counsel or party made a monetary contribution

intendedtofundthepreparationorsubmissionofthisbrief.All

partieshaveconsentedtoamici’ssubmissionofthisbriefeither

inwritingorbyblanketconsentletter. Nopersonotherthan

theamici curiae,or theircounsel,madesuchamonetarycon-

tribution.Afulllistofamici curiae appearsintheAppendixto

thisbrief.

(1)


10/53

2

SUMMARYOFARGUMENT

FoundationaltotheEqualProtectionClauseoftheFourteenthAmendmentistheprinciplethat“theCon-

stitution ‘neither knows nor tolerates classes amongcitizens.’” Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 623 (1996)(quoting Plessy v. Ferguson,163 U.S. 537,559 (1896)(Harlan,J.,dissenting)). Inlinewiththisprinciple,ithas long been bedrock law that “separate but equal”treatment does not satisfy the Federal Constitution.The very notion is a contradiction in terms: as thisCourthasemphasizedsince Brown v. Board of Educa-tion, the Constitution’s promise of true equality isnecessarilybreachedbygovernmentsponsoredsepara-tionofadisfavoredclass.

ThestatutoryandconstitutionalbansinKentucky,Michigan,Ohio,andTennesseethatprohibitsamesexcouplesfrommarryingandthatprohibitrecognitionoflegallyperformedmarriagesinotherstates(collective-ly, the “Marriage Bans”) betray these longstanding

values. Theyexcludeaclassofpeople—gaymenandlesbians—from thevenerated institution of marriage.Theydosofornopurposeotherthantodenythatclassof people access to marriage, creating a perniciousdistinctionthatisasobviousandemotionladenasitisdifficulttofullyarticulate. Andthisunjustifiabledif-

ferentiation of gay and lesbian couples, as amici ex-plain below, inflicts profound injury upon them. Be-cause the Marriage Bans set them apart, gay men,lesbians, and their families are deprived of criticalbenefitsenjoyed by theirheterosexual neighbors, aresubjected to debilitating stigma, and are exposed toincreased discrimination on the basis of their sexualorientation. TheseeffectsarerepugnanttotheConsti-tution’sguaranteeofequalityandareinnowaymiti-


11/53

3

gated by access—where available—to separate andinherentlyinferiorsystemsofdomesticpartnershiporcivilunion.

The Marriage Bans cannot survive even rationalbasis review. Amici agreewithPetitioners’argumentthatthesebanslackanylegitimatejustification; theyhavebeenenacted“forthepurposeofdisadvantagingthe groupburdenedby the law.” Romer,517 U.S. at633. They “classif[y] homosexuals not to further aproper legislative end but to make them unequal toeveryoneelse.” Id. at635.

There iswidespread consensus among the districtcourtsof theSixth Circuitas wellas otherCourtsof

AppealsthatlawssuchastheMarriageBansunconsti-

tutionallydisadvantagegaysandlesbianswithoutanylegitimate justification. Amici respectfully urge thisCourttoholdlikewise. See Kitchen v. Herbert,755F.3d1193(10thCir.2014); Bostic v. Schaefer,760F.3d352(4thCir.2014); Baskin v. Bogan,766F.3d648(7thCir.2014); Latta v. Otter,771F.3d456(9thCir.2014);Pet.

App. 161a218a2; 14571 Pet. App.103a139a; 14562Pet.App.108a130a;Pet.App.124a157a.Asexplainedbelow, first, theCourtshouldnot abandonitsjudicialresponsibility, astheSixthCircuitdid, byrefusingtoadjudicate the constitutionalityofthe MarriageBans

and by leaving the constitutional legitimacy of theMarriageBansexclusivelyinthehandsofstatevoters.Doingsowouldamounttoa stunningrejectionoftheconstitutional underpinnings of our judicial systemand over two hundredyearsof jurisprudence bythisCourt. Second, in deciding the constitutional issue,

2Unless otherwise noted, citations to “Pet. App.” are to the

AppendixinNo.14556.


12/53

4

this Court should recognize that the institution ofmarriage is special, that nothing short of grantingsamesexcouplesthesame marriagerightsenjoyedbyoppositesexcouplesfulfillstheConstitution’smandateofequalprotection,andthattheMarriageBansinflictreal,tangible,andunjustifiableharmongaymenandlesbians,aswellasontheirfamiliesandchildren.

ARGUMENT

I. ItIsTheProvinceAndDutyOfThisCourtTo HoldThat The Marriage BansViolateTheEqualProtectionClause

A.ClassificationsThatAreIntendedOnlyToDisadvantage A Group Of People Fail

EvenRationalBasisReviewThe Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendmentis“acommitmenttothe law’sneutralitywheretherightsofpersonsareatstake.” Romer,517U.S.at623. Inforbiddinganystatefrom“deny[ing]toanypersonwithinitsjurisdictiontheequalprotectionof the laws,” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1, the EqualProtection Clause “requires the consideration ofwhethertheclassificationsdrawnbyanystatutecon-stitute an arbitrary and invidious discrimination.”

Loving v. Virginia,388U.S.1,10 (1967). Evenunder

themostdeferentialreview—therationalbasistest—astate law must be “rationally related to a legitimatestateinterest.” City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr.,473U.S.432,440(1985).3 “TheStatemaynotrelyona

3 Amici believe that the MarriageBans shouldbe subject to

heightened scrutiny. See, e.g., SmithKline Beecham Corp. v.

Abbott Labs., 740 F.3d 471, 480 (9th Cir. 2014) (distinctions

basedonsexualorientationaresubjecttoheightenedscrutiny).

However,becausetheMarriageBansfailtoadvanceanylegit-


13/53

5

classificationwhoserelationshiptoanassertedgoalissoattenuatedastorenderthedistinctionarbitraryorirrational.” Id. at446.

A“classificationofpersonsundertaken for itsownsake”failsevenrationalbasisreview,becausebydefi-nition it serves no legitimate governmental purpose.

Romer,517U.S.at635. AsthisCourtrepeatedlyhasexplained,“[I]f the constitutional conception of ‘equalprotectionofthelaws’meansanything,itmustatthe

veryleastmeanthatabare...desiretoharmapoliti-cally unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimategovernmental interest.” Id. at 63435 (quoting U.S.

Dep’t of Agric. v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528, 534 (1973)). Accordingly,in Romer,thisCourtstruckdownaColo-

rado constitutional amendment that prohibited gov-ernmental protection of gay and lesbian individuals. Id. at 636. The amendment, the Court held, was a“statusbased enactment” that “impose[d] a specialdisabilityupon[gaysandlesbians]alone.” Id. at631,635. It“inflict[ed] on[gaysand lesbians] immediate,continuing,andrealinjuriesthatoutrunandbelieanylegitimatejustificationsthatmaybeclaimedforit.” Id.at635;see also Eisenstadt v. Baird,405U.S.438,454-55 (1972) (law prohibiting distribution of contracep-tivestounmarriedindividualslackedarationalbasis

andviolatedtheEqualProtectionClause).B.ItIsUniquelyTheProvinceOfTheCourts

ToDecideTheEqualProtectionChallengeToTheMarriageBans

TheSixthCircuitCourtofAppealsentirelyabdicat-editsjudicialresponsibilityinholdingthat,intheface

imate governmental purpose, they fail to pass constitutional

musterundereventhemostdeferentialstandardofreview.


14/53

6

of a federal constitutional challenge to the MarriageBansundertheEqualProtectionClause,statevotersshouldhavethelastwordastowhethertheMarriageBanswereconstitutionalandwhen,ifever,theyshouldbe invalidated. This Court should not repeat thaterror.

Itisbothdisappointingandsurprisingthatsuchafundamentalprecept of our nation’sreveredconstitu-tionalsystem,datingbacktothefounding,shouldhavetobepointedoutinabrieffiledbeforethisCourtintheyear 2015. Since Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1Cranch)137 (1803),thisCourthasbeencrystal clearon the issue, never flinching from the urgent dutyimposedonthejudicialbranch:

Itisemphaticallytheprovinceanddutyofthejudi-cialdepartmenttosaywhatthelawis. Thosewhoapplytheruletoparticularcases,mustofnecessityexpoundandinterpretthatrule....Soifalawbeinoppositiontotheconstitution;ifboththelawandthe constitutionapplytoaparticularcase,sothatthecourtmusteitherdecidethatcaseconformablyto the law, disregarding the constitution; or con-formablytothe constitution,disregardingthe law;thecourtmustdeterminewhichoftheseconflictingrulesgovernthecase. Thisisoftheveryessenceof

judicialduty.

Id. at17778. And yet,despite these foundational principles, the

SixthCircuitheldthatithadnodutyto“saywhatthelaw is” here because, in the face of a constitutionalchallengetotheMarriageBans,the“definitionofmar-riage”shouldbeleft“inthehandsofstatevoters”andlegislators. Pet.App.29a;see also id. at40a(“Dothebenefits of standing by the traditional definition of


15/53

7

marriagemake up forthesecosts? Thequestionde-mands an answer—but from elected legislators, notlifetenuredjudges.”). Thatdestructivetautology,pur-portingtoreassigntovotersandlegislatorstheinher-entlyjudicialtaskofevaluatingtheconstitutionalityofstateprovisionsoriginallydecideduponbyvotersandlegislators, fliesdirectlyinthe faceofthe ruleoflawand the principles in which our country rightfullytakes such great pride. As this Court held in WestVirginia State Board of Education v. Barnette,319U.S.624(1943),

Thevery purposeof aBill of Rights was to with-drawcertainsubjectsfromthevicissitudesofpoliti-cal controversy,toplacethembeyond the reach of

majoritiesandofficialsandtoestablishthemasle-gal principles to be applied by the courts. One’srighttolife,liberty,and property,tofreespeech,afree press, freedom of worship and assembly, andotherfundamentalrightsmaynotbesubmittedto

vote;theydependontheoutcomeofnoelections.

Id. at638 (striking down regulation mandating flagsaluteasviolatingFirstAmendment).

Whenmajorityenactedstatelawsarechallengedascontravening the EqualProtection Clause— especially

when they are challenged on the ground that theyseparate, disadvantage, and harm a minority—thisCourthasbeenadamant:thefederalcourtsmust act.

See Reynolds v. Sims,377U.S.533,566(1964)(statingin the context ofapportioning state legislative repre-sentation:“Wearetoldthatthematter...isacomplexandmanyfacetedone.WeareadvisedthatStatescanrationally consider [various] factors . . . .Wearead-monished not to restrict the power of the States toimpose differing views as to political philosophy on


16/53

8

theircitizens. Wearecautionedaboutthedangersofenteringintopoliticalthicketsand[other]quagmires.Ouransweristhis:adenialofconstitutionallyprotect-edrightsdemandsjudicialprotection;our oath and ouroffice require no less of us.”(emphasisadded)). Andthefederal courtshave never shied away just because achallenge presented social controversy or touched onfundamental issues; quite the contrary, that is whentheir responsibility to decide constitutional issues ismostcritical. See Mayers v. Ridley,465F.2d630,642(D.C. Cir. 1972) (“[A]ppellees suggest that appellantsshould address their complaints of racialdiscrimina-tion to the political branch of government and thatattemptingtowrenchsocialreformfromthejudiciary

disregards theprincipleofseparationofpowers. Butwhilewemust,ofcourse,maintainproperrespect forthejurisdictionofcoordinatebranchesofgovernment,under our law the judiciary too has the obligation of

enforcing constitutional rights.” (emphasis added)); Baskin, 766 F.3d at 671 (“Minorities trampled on bythedemocraticprocesshaverecoursetothecourts;therecourseiscalledconstitutionallaw.”).

Finally,theobligationofthecourtstodecideconsti-tutionalityisevenmoremomentouswhenthesubjectofthe challenged law issoessentialaninstitutionas

marriage. “State laws defining and regulating mar-riage,ofcourse,mustrespecttheconstitutionalrightsofpersons[.]” United States v. Windsor,133S.Ct.2675,2691(2013);see also Loving,388U.S.at7(“Whilethestatecourtisnodoubtcorrect inasserting thatmar-riage isa social relation subject to the State’s policepower,...theStatedoesnotcontendinitsargumentbeforethisCourtthatitspowerstoregulatemarriage


17/53

9

are unlimited notwithstanding the commands of theFourteenthAmendment. Norcoulditdoso....”).

Therighttomarryis not,asthe DeBoer appellatecourt found, a mere “policy problem” or “social ques-tion[],”Pet.App.37a,62a,suitablefora“Burkeansenseofcaution,”id. at37a. Rather,“[m]arriageisoneofthe‘basic civilrightsofman[kind],’”“oneofthevitalper-sonalrightsessentialtotheorderlypursuitofhappi-ness[.]” Loving,388U.S.at12. Whetheritcanconsti-tutionallybedeniedtoaclassofpeople,andwhetherthere isany rationalbasisfordoing so,arequestionsforthejudiciary.

II. Excluding SameSex Couples From TheInstitution Of Marriage Harms Gay And

Lesbian Individuals, Their Families, AndTheirChildren

In deciding the constitutionality of the MarriageBans,thisCourtshouldrecognizethatmarriageenjoysa privileged status among the institutions that thiscountry is foundedupon, and thatbarringentryintothat institution to samesex couples imposes seriousharmonthemandontheirfamiliesandchildren.

A.Marriage Is A Uniquely Revered Institu-tionInAmericanSociety

1.Marriageholdsahallowedstatusinoursociety. As courts repeatedly recognize, marriage can be anessentialaspectofthehumanexperience. Far“morethan a routine classification for purposes of certainstatutorybenefits,”Windsor, 133S. Ct. at 2692, mar-riage is“aninstitutionoftranscendenthistorical,cul-tural and social significance,” Kerrigan v. Comm’r of

Pub. Health,957A.2d407,418(Conn.2008),“aninsti-tution more basic in our civilization than any other.”


18/53

10

Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287,303 (1942).Itssignificancetothecoupleinvolvedisunparalleled;itis“intimatetothedegreeofbeingsacred.” Griswoldv. Connecticut,381U.S.479,486(1965).Furthermore,marriage is a timehonored demonstration to family,friends, and the community of a loving commitmentand mutual responsibility between two people, andimplies a return promise by society to respect thatcommitment. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95(1987)(recognizingthatmarriageisan“expression[]ofemotional support and public commitment”). Theinstitutionis“ahighlypubliccelebrationoftheidealsof mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, andfamily.” Goodridge v. Dep’t of Pub. Health,798N.E.2d

941,954(Mass.2003).Therighttomarry,accordingly,“haslongbeenrec-ognizedasoneofthevitalpersonalrightsessentialtothe orderly pursuit of happiness by free men [andwomen].” Loving,388U.S.at12;see also Perez v. Lip-

pold, 198 P.2d 17, 1819(Cal. 1948)(“Marriage is ...somethingmorethanacivilcontractsubjecttoregula-tion by the state; it is a fundamental right of freemen.”). Asa resultofthespecialsignificanceofmar-riageinsociety,theinstitutionhasacritical“signaling”role,apartfromthespecificlegalobligationsitentails.

ElizabethS.Scott, Social Norms and the Legal Regula-tion of Marriage,86Va.L.Rev.1901,1917(2000). Thesignalsentbythefactthattwoindividualsaremarriedalters how they view themselves, how they behavetoward one another, and how society behaves towardthem.

First, married people understand they are to beemotionally and financially supportive, honest, andfaithfultooneanother. See RobertA.Burt, Belonging


19/53

11

in America: How to Understand SameSex Marriage,25BYU J. Pub. L. 351, 357 (2011) (noting that “[t]hisfaithfulnesshasalwaysbeenatthecoreofthemaritalstatusformixedsexcouples”).Althoughmarriedcou-plesmaymodifytheirexpectationsandbehaviorovertime,theybenefitbybeginningwithacommonunder-standing of the marital relationship, gleaned from alifetimeofparticipatinginsociety,hearingaboutmar-riage, and observing married couples. See generallyJeffreyM.Adams&WarrenH.Jones,The Conceptual-ization of Marital Commitment: An Integrative Analy-sis,72 J. Personality Soc. Psychol. 1177 (1997). Thissharedunderstandingassistsmarriedcouplesinmeet-ingindividualandspousalexpectations,andmotivates

themtoworkthroughtemporarydifficulties. See id.The institutionofmarriagelikewise provides com-mongroundforothersinsocietytounderstandacou-ple’s relationship. Because marriage is universallyrecognized, married couples are readily treated in amanner that reflects theirpersonal commitment andconcomitant legal and social status. See Goodridge,798N.E.2dat955(“Because[marriage]fulfillsyearn-ings for security,safe haven, and connection that ex-pressour common humanity,civilmarriage isanes-teemed institution, and the decision whether and

whomtomarryisamonglife’smomentousactsofselfdefinition.”). Spousesareunderstoodasfamilymem-bers. When a married couple opensa joint bank orretirement account, orchecks into a hotel, orappliesfor a credit card, or attends a parentteacher confer-ence,oraccompaniesa childorgrandchildonaplaneflight,orrentsacartogether,thereisnoneedforex-planation or documentary proof of the relationship.

See generally Varnum v. Brien,763N.W.2d862,88384


20/53

12

(Iowa 2009) (“Iowa’s marriage laws” are “designed tobring a sense of order to the legal relationships ofcommitted couples and their families in myriadways.”).

Forthesereasons and others,manypeopleregardgetting married as the most important day in theirlives—indeed,marriage“isthecenterpieceofourentiresocialstructure.” ThomasB.Stoddard,Why Gay People

Should Seek the Right to Marry,Out/Look:Nat’lGay&LesbianQ.,Fall1989,at9,12.

2. Domestic partnership laws and civil unions,which some stateshave attempted to use to remedytheharmcausedbytheexclusionofsamesexcouplesfromtheinstitutionofmarriage,lackthesignificance,

stability,and meaningofrealmarriage. Thesenoveland unstable categories were invented recently,4andtheirmeaningisevershifting.5

Not surprisingly, inlightoftheirnovelanduncer-tain stature, domestic partnerships and civil unionsare not valued by society in a way that comparestomarriage. Peopledonotassociatetheselegalisticrela-tionshipswiththestabilityandpermanencethatchar-acterizemarriage.Inturn,theregistrationofadomes-ticpartnershipislessmeaningfultosamesexcouplesthangettingmarriedwouldbe. Thecomplexemotions

thatpeopleexperiencewhentheygetmarried—aswellas the joyandhuman closeness they feel when theyattendawedding—simplydonotattachtotheminis-

4The City of West Hollywood, California, enacted the first

domesticpartnershipordinanceinthemid1980s.5 For example, in 1997, Hawaii’s statutory scheme granted

samesexcouplesonly60rightsassociatedwith marriage, but

recentlyexpanded the numberof such rights. See Haw. Rev.

Stat.§§ 572B,572C2(2014).


21/53

13

terial step of registering a domestic partnership orenteringacivilunion. Evenwhendomesticpartnerscelebratetheirlegalregistrationwithaceremony,theterrainisunfamiliar: Istheeventawedding?Acom-mitment ceremony? Something else? The lack of acommonvocabularyunderscores theinstitution’s lackofsocietalstature.

Thesedifficultiescontinuethroughouttherelation-ship. Eventhesimpleactofreferringtoone’s“partner”can be wrought with embarrassment and misunder-standing: members of samesex couples can be leftsearchingforamannertoexplain,nomatterhowun-comfortablethesetting,whethertheyarereferringtotheirdomestic partnerortotheirprofessional,athletic,

orlawpartner. Consequently,samesexcouplesmustoften explain the intricacies of state family law tofriends andpotentially hostile strangers alike. Suchambiguities, and the likelihood of differential treat-ment,wouldbereducedifsamesexcouplescouldaccu-ratelyrefertothemselvesas“married”orcouldrefertoeachotheras“husband”or“wife,”avocabularythatisuniversallyunderstood.

Insum,marriagehasauniquestatusinAmericansociety. Thereis nodispute thatmarriagemeans farmorethaninheritancerights,taxadvantages,orcom-

munityproperty. Itis,instead,theultimatesymbolof“unequaled commitment.” Evan Wolfson, Why Mar-riage Matters: America, Equality, and Gay People’s

Right to Marry 6(2004). Simplyput:“Nomatterwhatlanguagepeople speak—from Arabic toYiddish,fromChinooktoChinese—marriage iswhat we useto de-scribeaspecific relationshipofloveanddedicationtoanotherperson.Itishowweexplainthefamiliesthatare united because of that love. And it universally


22/53

14

signifiesalevelofselfsacrificeandresponsibilityanda stage of life unlike any other.” Id. at 3 (emphasisadded).

B.ExclusionFromMarriageCausesTangibleHarm

Denial of this fundamental right imposes seriousharmongayandlesbianindividuals,couples,andtheirfamilies. Thisharmisnot limited tothosesamesexcoupleswhowishtomarry.Rather,itisfeltbyallgaymenandlesbianswhoseehowpeoplewhosharetheirsexualorientationaretreated,aswellasbytheirfami-liesandchildren.

1. Harm To Children

Harm to children lies at the heart of the issue.“Formally, [the samesex marriage] cases are aboutdiscriminationagainstthesmallhomosexualminorityintheUnitedStates. Butatadeeperlevel,...theyareaboutthewelfareofAmericanchildren.” Baskin,766F.3dat654. Notably,“thebanonsamesexmarriageislikely to have an especially deleterious effect on thechildrenofsamesexcouples.” Kerrigan, 957A.2dat474. Children perceive and understand the uniqueinstitutionofmarriageinAmericansocietyandknowthedifferencewhentheirparents—theirfamilies—are

excludedfromit. AsrecognizedbythisCourtinWind-sor,theperceived“differentiation”ofsamesexcouplesnotonly“demeansthecouple,whosemoralandsexualchoicestheConstitutionprotects,”butalso“humiliatestens of thousands of children now being raised bysamesexcouples.” Windsor,133S.Ct.at2694. WhileWindsor addressed the differentiation felt regardingfederalrecognitionofastatesanctionedmarriage,this“humiliation” is only exacerbated for children whose


23/53

15

parentsarebarredfrommarriagecompletely. Moresothan inWindsor, theMarriage Bans “make[] it evenmoredifficultforthechildrentounderstandtheinteg-rityandclosenessoftheirownfamilyanditsconcordwith other families in their community and in theirdailylives.” Id.

“Aprimaryreasonwhymanysamesexcoupleswishto marry is so that their children can feel secure inknowingthattheirparents’relationshipsareasvalidand as valued as the marital relationships of theirfriends’ parents.” Kerrigan,957A.2dat474;see also

Baskin,766F.3dat664(“Ifachild’ssamesexparentsaremarried...thechildcanfeelsecureinbeingthechildofamarriedcouple.”). Whereas“[c]hildrenwho

are raisedbycivillymarriedparentsbenefit fromthelegalstatusgrantedtotheirparents,”childrenwhoseparentsarenotpermittedtomarrymaysufferpsycho-logicalharm. James G.Pawelskietal.,The Effects of

Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Lawson the Health and Wellbeing of Children, 118Pediat-rics349,358,361(2006).“Excludingsamesexcouplesfromcivilmarriage...doespreventchildrenofsamesex couples from enjoying the immeasurable ad-

vantagesthatflowfromtheassuranceofastablefami-lystructureinwhichthechildrenwillbereared,edu-

cated,and socialized.” Goodridge, 798N.E.2dat 964(citationomitted).

As the President of the New Jersey Psychological Associationhasattested:

Childrenofsamesexrelationshipsmustcopewiththestigma of being ina familywithoutthesocialrecognitionthatexiststhroughmarriage....Suchstigma may be indirect such as the strain due tolack of social support andacceptance. Also, some


24/53

16

childrenmaybetargetedduetoteasinginschoolorfrompeers.

N.J.Civ.UnionRev.Comm’n, The Legal, Medical, Eco-

nomic & Social Consequences of New Jersey’s CivilUnion Law 16 (Dec. 10, 2008),http://www.nj.gov/lps/dcr/downloads/CURCFinal-Report.pdf (quoting testimony of Dr. JudithGlassgold).

Inengagingintherationalbasisanalysis,theCourtmust look to the proffered “legitimate justification”providedbythestate. Ascharacterizedbythedissentin DeBoer,thisis“whathascometobeknownasthe‘irresponsible procreation’ theory: that limiting mar-riageanditsbenefitstooppositesexcouplesisration-

al,evennecessary,toprovidefor‘unintendedoffspring’by channeling their biological procreators into thebonds of matrimony.” Pet. App. 72a (Daughtrey, J.,dissenting).6 Thisrationaleandothertheoriesclaim-ingvaguestaterelatedinterestsinchildrearingsimp-lyignorethedestabilizingandstigmatizingeffect theMarriageBansandsimilarlawshaveonover200,000childrenthroughouttheUnitedStates.

Thereareapproximately125,000samesexcouplesraisingnearly 220,000 childreninthe United States.GaryJ.Gates,WilliamsInstitute,UCLASchoolofLaw,

LGBT Parenting in the United States 3 (2013),http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/lgbtparenting.pdf. Some of these

6Theillogicofthistheorywashighlightedwithsomeexasper-

ationbythe Baskin courtasfollows: “Heterosexualsgetdrunk

andpregnant,producingunwantedchildren;theirrewardisto

beallowed tomarry. Homosexual couplesdonot produceun-

wantedchildren;theirrewardistobedeniedtherighttomarry.

Gofigure.” Baskin,766F.3dat662.

http://www.nj.gov/lps/dcr/downloads/CURC-Finalhttp://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wphttp://www.nj.gov/lps/dcr/downloads/CURC-Finalhttp://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp


25/53

17

families live in states where joint or secondparentadoptionbysamesexcouplesislegal.Inthesestates,therationalesimplyprovesthatthereistrulynobasisfordifferentiatingbetweensamesexandoppositesexcouplesinconferringtherighttomarry.

Totheextentthatchildrenarebetteroffinfamiliesinwhichtheparentsaremarried,theyarebetteroffwhethertheyareraisedbytheirbiologicalparentsorbyadoptiveparents.Thediscriminationagainstsamesexcouplesisirrational,andthereforeuncon-stitutionalevenifthediscriminationisnotsubject-edtoheightenedscrutiny[.]

Baskin,766F.3dat656.Thisregimeexemplifiestheimpermissible “classificationwhose relationship toanassertedgoalissoattenuatedastorenderthedistinc-tionarbitraryorirrational.” Cleburne,473U.S.at446.Intruth,“[t]oallowsamesexcouplestoadoptchildrenandthentolabeltheirfamiliesassecondclassbecausethe adoptive parents are of the same sex is cruel aswellasunconstitutional.” Latta v. Otter,771F.3d456,474(9thCir.2014).

Otherstates—includingallthe states of the SixthCircuit—prohibit adoption by a second parent of thesamesex,creatingalegalvoidinthefamilyrelation-

shipbetween the child and the nonadoptive parent.These states too lack a rational basis for prohibitingsamesex marriage simply because the evidence isoverwhelming that all marriage, “whether betweensamesex or oppositesex partners, increases stabilitywithinthefamilyunit.” Pet.App.84a85a(Daughtrey,J., dissenting). As the DeBoer district court found,samesex couples are just as able to provide for thewelfare and development of children as oppositesexcouples. 14571Pet.App.127a131a.Bycontrast,the


26/53

18

ramifications of a ban on marriage (and by conse-quence, on adoption) canbe lifealtering. What hap-pensiftheadoptiveorbiologicalparentisnotavailableinanemergency? Canthenonadoptiveparentmakemedicaldecisionsforthechild?Willthenonadoptiveparentbeabletogaincustodyandcareforthechildifthe recognized parent dies orbecomes incapacitated?Because of the Marriage Bans, the answers to thesefundamentalquestionsareleftuncertain.7

Every district court decision overturned by theSixth Circuit found that the Marriage Bans had norational basis and instead actively harmed children.Pet.App.209a210a(“Evenifitwererationalforlegis-latorstospeculatethatchildrenraisedbyheterosexual

couples arebetter off than children raised by gay orlesbiancouples,which it is not,thereissimplynora-tional connectionbetweentheOhiomarriagerecogni-tion bans and the asserted goal, as Ohio’s marriagerecognitionbansdonotpreventgaycouplesfromhav-ingchildren.”);14574Pet.App.147a(“TheCourtfailsto see how having a [samesex parent] family couldconceivably harm children.”); 14571 Pet. App. 129a(finding “no differences” between outcomes in raisingchildren in samesex versus oppositesex householdsand thattheMichiganmarriagelaw “actuallyfosters

the potential for childhood destabilization”); 14562

7 AsnotedbythedissentinDeBoer,for example,inMichigan

“[e]ven though one person can legally adopt a child, should

anythinghappentothatadoptiveparent,thereisnoprovision

in Michigan’s legal framework that would ‘ensure that the

childrenwouldnecessarilyremainwiththesurvivingnonlegal

parent,’ even if that parent went through the arduous, time

consuming,expensiveadoptionapprovalprocess.” Pet.App.78a

(Daughtrey,J.dissenting).


27/53

19

Pet.App.126a(issuinginjunctiondueto“animminentrisk of potentialharm to [Plaintiffs’] childrenduringtheir developing years from the stigmatization anddenigrationoftheirfamilyrelationship”).

TheSixthCircuit’srationaledoesnotwithstandra-tionalbasisscrutiny,andtheCourtshouldrejectitoutofhand.

2. Legal And Economic Harm

Aside from the harm to children, of course, is theharmtothecouplethemselves. Thisharm, too, “out-run[s]andbelie[s]”anypurportedstatejustificationfortheMarriageBans. Romer,517U.S.at635. Exclusionof samesex couples from the institution of marriageresults in thedenialof many real andconcrete legal

andeconomicbenefitsthatarepremisedupon marriedstatus. See generally M.V.LeeBadgett,The EconomicValue of Marriage for SameSex Couples,58DrakeL.Rev.1081(2010).

The legal harms suffered by samesex couplesbarred from marriage are myriad: limits on medicalaccess,deathandinheritancebenefits,federalbenefits,andparental rights (asdiscussedabove). InTanco v.

Haslam,14562Pet.App.108a130a,thedistrictcourtgranted a preliminary injunction prohibiting Tennes-see from enforcing its Marriage Ban against threecoupleswhomarriedoutsideTennessee. The“irrepa-rableharm”wasextensive,affectingjointhomeowner-ship; availability of employersponsoredhealth insur-ance plans; and parental rights, among other rightsandprivileges. Thecourtcalled“particularlycompel-ling”thecircumstancesofonecouplewhose

babyisdueanyday,andanycomplicationsormedi-cal emergenciesassociated withthe baby’s birth—


28/53

20

particularly one incapacitating Dr. Tanco—mightrequireDr.JestytomakemedicaldecisionsforDr.Tancoortheirchild. Furthermore,ifDr.Jestyweretodie,it appearsthatherchildwouldnotbeenti-tledtoSocialSecuritybenefitsasasurvivingchild.Finally, Dr. Tanco reasonably fears that Dr. JestywillnotbepermittedtoseethebabyinthehospitalifDr.Tancoisotherwiseunabletogiveconsent.

14562Pet.App.126a.Theavailabilityoffederalbenefitstomarriedcou-

plespostWindsor furtherdemonstratesthattheMar-riage Bans inflict real economic and legal harm onsamesexcouples. AsWindsor’sholdingwaslimitedto“lawfulmarriages,”Windsor,133S.Ct.at2696,certain

federal agencies have extended protections and re-sponsibilities to married samesexcouples;but manyagencieshave stated explicitly that they will not ex-tend protections to registered domestic partners.8

Thus,statutoryschemesthatallowsamesexcouplestoenterdomesticpartnershipsorcivilunions,butthatdonot allow themtomarry,result inthe deprivationoffederal benefits because many federal agencies offer

8Forexample,theOfficeofPersonnelManagementexpressly

providedthat“[b]enefitscoverageisnowavailabletoalegallymarriedsamesexspouseofaFederalemployeeorannuitant,”

but“samesexcoupleswhoareinacivilunionorotherformsof

domesticpartnership...willremainineligibleformostFederal

benefitsprograms.” OfficeofPersonnelManagement,Coverage

of Same–Sex Spouses, No. 13203 (July 17, 2013),

http://www.opm.gov/retirementservices/publications-

forms/benefitsadministrationletters/2013/13203.pdf; see also

Rev. Rul. 201317, 201338 I.R.B. 201 (extending federal tax

benefits to samesex marriagesbutnotdomestic partnerships

orcivilunions).

http://www.opm.gov/retirement-services/publicationshttp://www.opm.gov/retirement-services/publications


29/53

21

such benefits only to lawfully married couples. Per-hapsthemoststrikingexampleoftheresultingdispar-ityarisesintheimmigrationcontext,wheretheques-tionofwhetherasamesexcoupleislawfully marriedormerelyinadomesticpartnershiporcivilunioncouldmean the differencebetweendeportation and avalidbasis for a familybased immigration visa. USCIS,

Same Sex Marriages, http://www.uscis.gov/family /samesexmarriages (lastupdatedApr.3, 2014). Andbydenyingsamesexcouplestheright tomarry,Ken-tucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee have placedthose federal protections and responsibilities entirelyofflimitstothem. See generally Garden State Equalityv. Dow,79A.3d1036(N.J.2013).

Moregenerally,marriageconfersnumerouseconom-icbenefitsthat stemfromthe unique commitmentitrepresents. For example, marriage fosters greaterspecialization of labor, which can increase a couple’sincome and the time available for family. Badgett,supra,at1101. Marriagealsotendsto reduceacou-ple’stransaction costs: Marriage“promotes economicefficiency by reducing transaction costs for couples,mainlybyremovingtheneedtorenegotiatethetermsofthelegalrelationshipascouplesexperiencechangedcircumstances.” Id. Furthermore,marriedindividuals

enjoy greater employmentrelated economic gains,whereas samesex couples who cannot marry faceuncertainty and pressures that may adversely affecttheir work performance and reduce their economicrewards. Id. at110203. Thoughdifficulttoquantify,these economic benefits of marriage are wellknownandacknowledgedinthefieldofeconomics. Id.

http://www.uscis.gov/familyhttp://www.uscis.gov/family


30/53

22

3. Emotional And Physical Harm

Aside from harming children, divesting couples ofstate, federal, and constitutional legalrights, and de-

privingthemofeconomicbenefits,theMarriageBanscan have devastating emotional and physical conse-quencesonindividualgayandlesbianpeople.Thisisbecause the Marriage Bans legitimize and magnifysocietalprejudiceanddiscriminationagainstgayandlesbian individuals—whose “moral and sexual choicesthe Constitution protects.”Windsor,133S.Ct.at2694(emphasisadded) (citing Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S.558(2003)).

The tragic results of that discrimination are welldocumented. It can cause gay men and lesbians to

suffer“minoritystress,”whichmanifestsitselfthrough“prejudice events”: expectations of rejection and dis-crimination, concealment of identity,and internalizedhomophobia. See Ilan H. Meyer, Prejudice, Social

Stress, and Mental Health in Lesbian, Gay and Bisexu-al Populations: Conceptual Issues and Research Evi-dence, 129 Psychol. Bull. 674 (2003). Such stressesnegativelyaffect the mentalhealthand wellbeing ofgayandlesbianindividuals. See, e.g.,GilbertHerdt&RobertKertzner, I Do, But I Can’t: The Impact of Mar-riage Denial on the Mental Health and Sexual Citizen-

ship of Lesbians and Gay Men in the United States,3J.SexualityRes.Soc.Pol’y33 (2006). “Greaterexposuretodiscriminationandperceptionsofstigmahavebeenlinked with poorer mental health in sexual minorityindividuals.” AdamW. Fingerhut etal., Identity, Mi-nority Stress and Psychological WellBeing Among Gay

Men and Lesbians, 1 Psychol. & Sexuality 101, 105(2010).


31/53

23

Internalizedhomophobia, for example, can lead tolowered selfesteem, anxiety, substance abuse, anddepression. Gregory M. Herek et al., Correlates of

Internalized Homophobia in a Community Sample of Lesbians and Gay Men,2J.Gay&LesbianMed.Ass’n17 (1997). And frequent suicides by gay teenagershave “drawn national attention to the insidiouspeerharassment that lesbian, gay, bisexual, andtransgender(LGBT)youthfaceonadailybasis.” LisaC. Connolly, AntiGay Bullying in Schools—Are Anti

Bullying Statutes the Solution?,87N.Y.U.L.Rev.248,249(2012);see, e.g.,AshleyFantz, An Ohio TransgenderTeen’s Suicide; A Mother’s Anguish,Jan.4,2015,CNN,http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/31/us/ohiotransgender-

teensuicide/ (discussing the Dec. 28, 2014 death oftransgender teen Leelah Alcorn, whose suicide notepleaded,“TheonlywayIwillrestinpeaceisifonedaytransgender people aren’t treated the way I was,they’re treated like humans, with valid feelings andhumanrights....Fixsociety.Please.”).

C.The Marriage Bans Communicate Gov-ernmental Animus Toward SameSex Re-lationships

Theharmsoutlinedaboveareconsequencesofthelegaloperationofstateprohibitionsonsamesexmar-riage. This Court has long recognized that statecondoned discrimination and separatebutunequalinstitutionsinflictinjuriesevenbeyondthedeprivationofparticularbenefitsand can themselvesbemarkersof official denigration which serve to perpetuate dis-crimination. See, e.g., Strauder v. West Virginia, 100U.S.303,308(1879)(notingthatexclusionofnonwhitecitizens from juries was “practically a brand uponthem,affixedbythelaw,anassertionoftheirinferiori-

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/31/us/ohio-transgenderhttp://www.cnn.com/2014/12/31/us/ohio-transgender


32/53

24

ty”)(abrogated on other grounds by Taylor v. Louisiana,419U.S.522(1975)). First,barringonegroupfroma

valued institution demeans the group’s members byofficially designating themassomehow inferior. Sec-ond,exclusionofanunpopulargroupleadstostigmati-zation,which,inturn,leadstofurtherdiscrimination.

1. The Marriage Bans Stigmatize Same-Sex Relationships

AstheCourtnotedinWindsor whenitstruckdowntheDefenseofMarriageAct,“Theavowedpurposeandpracticaleffectofthe lawhereinquestionare toim-poseadisadvantage,aseparatestatus,andsoastig-ma”onsamesexcouples. Windsor,133S.Ct.at2693.“Responsibilities,aswellasrights,enhancethedignity

andintegrityoftheperson.” Id. at2694.Indeprivingsamesex couples of the opportunity to take part inthose rights and responsibilities, the Marriage Bans,likeDOMA,“tell[]thosecouples,andalltheworld,thattheir”relationshipsare“unworthyof...recognition.”

Id. AswastrueforDOMA,theMarriageBans’“prin-cipaleffectistoidentifyasubsetof[relationships]andmake them unequal. Theprincipalpurposeis to im-poseinequality.” Id.

ThattheMarriageBansandsimilarlawsconveyof-ficialdisapprovalofsamesexrelationshipswasnotedas far back as 2008, when the California SupremeCourtheldthatdomesticpartnershipwasnotaconsti-tutionallyadequatesubstituteformarriage:

[T]hestatutoryprovisionsthatcontinuetolimitac-cess to [marriage] exclusively to oppositesex cou-ples—whileprovidingonlyanovel,alternativeinsti-tution for samesex couples—likely will beviewedasanofficialstatementthatthefamilyrelationship


33/53

25

ofsamesexcouplesisnotofcomparablestatureorequaldignitytothefamilyrelationshipofoppositesexcouples.

In re Marriage Cases,183P.3d384,452(Cal.2008). Tothatend,thecourtreasoned:

[T]here is a very significant risk that retaining adistinctioninnomenclaturewithregardtothismostfundamental of relationships whereby the term‘marriage’isdeniedonlytosamesexcouplesinevi-tably will cause the new parallel institution thathas been made available to those couples to be

viewedasofalesserstaturethanmarriageand,ineffect,asamarkofsecondclasscitizenship.

Id.at445;see also Kerrigan,957A.2dat474(citing Inre Marriage Cases,183P.3dat445)(“[B]ecauseofthelongandcelebratedhistoryoftheterm‘marriage’andthewidespreadunderstandingthatthisworddescribesa family relationshipunreservedly sanctioned by thecommunity, the statutory provisions that continue tolimitaccesstothisdesignationexclusivelytooppositesexcouples—whileprovidingonlyanovel,alternativeinstitutionforsamesexcouples—likelywillbeviewedasanofficialstatementthatthefamilyrelationshipofsamesexcouplesisnotofcomparablestatureorequal

dignity tothe familyrelationship ofoppositesex cou-ples.”);Goodridge,798N.E.2dat962(statutorybaronmarriage for samesex couples “confers an officialstampofapproval on the destructive stereotype thatsamesex relationships are inherently unstable andinferiortooppositesexrelationshipsandarenotwor-thyofrespect”).

AsthedistrictcourtfoundinObergefell,“nohypo-thetical justification”—such as fostering natural pro-


34/53

26

creation—“can overcome the clear [] purpose” of theMarriage Bans, which is to “disparage and demean”samesex relationships. Pet. App. 212a. The courtnotedthatOhiogrants full faithand credittooutof-statemarriagesthatOhioitselfdoesnotperform( e.g.,marriages between first cousins, marriages of mi-nors)—but not to samesex marriages. Id. at 190a-192a.Ohiosinglesoutsamesexmarriageforspecial,unfavorable treatment by refusing to recognize suchmarriages evenwhen theywerevalidly performed inanother state. “The constitutional issue is clear[]”whenastatetreatsonegroupdifferentlyfromalltheothers:thelawmustbebasedon“irrationalprejudice.”

See Cleburne,473U.S.at447,450.

Thatpurposetodisparageanddemeansamesexre-lationshipsismadeevenclearerbythefactthatthreestates’MarriageBansprohibitstatelegislaturesoranypoliticalsubdivisionwithinthestatefromcreatingorrecognizingevendomesticpartnerships(which,asthisbriefdemonstrates,areinferiortomarriageandinsuf-ficienttoremedytheconstitutionalharms). See OhioConst.art.XV,§11(“Thisstateanditspoliticalsubdi-

visionsshallnotcreateorrecognizealegalstatus forrelationshipsofunmarriedindividualsthatintendstoapproximatethedesign,qualities,...oreffectofmar-

riage.”);Ky.Const.§233A(“Alegalstatus...substan-tiallysimilartothatofmarriage...shallnotbevalidorrecognized.”);Mich.Const.art.I,§25(banonrecog-nizing a “similar union” to marriage, such as a civilunion).9

9TennesseeistheonlystateintheSixthCircuitwhichdoes

notprohibitthecreationofdomesticpartnershipsthatapprox-

imate the legal rights associated with marriage. See Tenn.

Const. art. XI, § 18 (prohibiting state and local governments


35/53

27

TheeffectoftheMarriageBansisthereforenotjustexclusion from a set of “rights and responsibilities”associated with the legal institution ofmarriage, butofficialdisapprovalofsamesexcouplesthatresultsinstigma. They have been enacted “for the purpose ofdisadvantaging the group burdened by the law.”

Romer,517U.S.at633.“[I]ftheconstitutionalconcep-tionof‘equalprotectionofthelaws’meansanything,itmustattheveryleastmeanthatabare...desiretoharmapoliticallyunpopulargroupcannotconstitutealegitimate governmentalinterest.” Id. at63435(quot-ing Moreno, 413 U.S. at 534). In Romer, the Courtinvalidatedavoterenactedconstitutionalamendmentthat,itstated,“classifie[d]homosexualsnottofurther

aproperlegislativeendbuttomakethemunequaltoeveryoneelse.” Id. at635. TheCourtshoulddolike-wiseherefor theMarriageBans,whosebroadharmsbetraythelackofanyrationalbasis.

2. The Marriage Bans’ Stigma PerpetuatesSocietal Discrimination Against Gay Men And Lesbians

When disapproval of samesex marriage is en-shrinedinthelaw,moraldisapprovalanddiscrimina-tioninsocietycanfesterandspread. Bymakingsexu-alorientationalegallysalientcharacteristic,theMar-riageBansencourageandprovide“cover”forthosewhoseektotreatgaymenandlesbiansdifferentlybasedontheir sexual orientation. See, e.g., Perry v.

Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921, 973 (N.D. Cal.2010) (describing how Proposition 8 sent “amessagethat gay relationships are not to be respected; that

from allowingorrecognizing samesex marriages,but notdo-

mesticpartnerships);Tenn.CodeAnn.§363113(2013)(same).


36/53

28

theyareofsecondaryvalue,ifofanyvalueatall;thattheyarecertainlynotequaltothoseofheterosexuals”).Because the state provides for separate and lessertreatmentofgaymenandlesbians,certainindividualsmay logically conclude that it is permissible to treatthemasinferior.10 Cf. Lawrence,539U.S.at575(crim-inalizingsexualconductbetweensamesexcoupleswas“an invitation to subject homosexual persons to dis-crimination both in the public and in the privatespheres”); Strauder,100U.S.at308(exclusionofnon-whitecitizensfromjurieswas“astimulantto...raceprejudice”). As the California Supreme Court ex-plained,“providingonlyaseparateanddistinctdesig-nation [ofcivilunions]forsamesexcouplesmaywell

havetheeffectofperpetuatingamoregeneralpremise...thatgayindividualsandsamesexcouples...may,under the law, be treated differently from, and lessfavorably than, heterosexual individuals or oppositesexcouples.” In re Marriage Cases,183P.3dat402;cf.

Baskin,766F.3dat658 (“Notthatallowingsamesexmarriage will change in the short run the negative

viewsmanyAmericansholdofsamesexmarriage.Butitwill enhance the status of these marriages in theeyes of otherAmericans, and in the long run it may

10Oneneedlooknofurther than the headlinesfor anecdotalevidence: when the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme

Courtdirectedcountiestorefusetofollowafederalcourtdeci-

sioninvalidatingagaymarriageban,newsreportshighlighted

coverageofaSouth Carolina pastor’s prayer vigil, literally in

theshadowoftheAlabamaStateCapitol,atwhichhe “urged

southerners to [ ] refuse to recognize marriages that he said

came ‘from the devil’shell’[.]” KimChandler, Alabama Set to

Become 37 th State to Allow Gay Marriage,AssociatedPress,Feb.

7, 2015, available at http://news.yahoo.com/gaymarriage-

arrivesalabama183946121.html.

http://news.yahoo.com/gay-marriagehttp://news.yahoo.com/gay-marriage


37/53

29

convert some of the opponents of such marriage bydemonstratingthathomosexualmarriedcouplesareinessentialrespects,notablyinthecareoftheiradoptedchildren,likeothermarriedcouples.”).

Moreover,bysegregatinggaymenandlesbians,theMarriageBanscausesocietytofocusonsexualorienta-tiontotheexclusionofothercharacteristics. Aswithsegregation on the basis of race, when gay men andlesbiansare singled out,and hencestigmatized, thenanindividual’ssexualorientation

andallthenegativeconnotationsgenerallyimputedtoit—eventuallyovershadowsor ‘eclipsesallotheraspects’ofhis orher self, essentially becomingallthat anyone sees. [Sexual orientation] becomes a

sortofmask,abarrierthatbothmakesitimpossi-bleforthestigmatizedperson’strueselftobeseenand fixes the range of responses that others willhavetothatperson.

Robin A. Lenhardt, Understanding the Mark: Race, Stigma, and Equality in Context,79N.Y.U.L.Rev.803,81819 (2004). Thus, when gaymenor lesbiansdis-closethat they are ina domesticpartnership, othersoftenseethemonly asgay—andtreatthemaccording-ly—ratherthanviewingthemasfullpersonsentitled

to thesame respect anddignity given to othermem-bers of society. See generally MarcR. Poirier, NameCalling: Identifying Stigma in the “Civil Un-ion”/“Marriage” Distinction, 41 Conn. L. Rev. 1425,142930,147989(2009) (describingtheway inwhichthe nomenclature distinction perpetuates bias andfacilitatesdiscrimination). ThereisnodoubtthattheeffectoftheMarriageBansis“immediate,continuing,and real injur[y]” to gay and lesbian individuals.

Romer, 517U.S.at635.


38/53

30

CONCLUSION

A number of racial, religious, and ethnic minoritieshave, at various times in history, faced restrictions on

their right to marry. See Nancy F. Cott, Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation 4 (2000) (discussingfor example Native Americans, African Americans, and

Asian Americans). But “[a] prime part of the history ofour Constitution . . . is the story of the extension of consti-tutional rights and protections to people once ignored orexcluded.” United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 557(1996). The Marriage Bans create a separate and une-qual regime for a disfavored class. Continuing to exclude,demean, and stigmatize gay and lesbian individuals andfamilies is inconsistent with that constitutional tradition.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals should be re- versed.

Respectfully submitted.

JEROME C. ROTH A MELIA L.B. S ARGENT

MUNGER, TOLLES &OLSON LLP

560 Mission Street 27th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 [email protected] (415) 512-4000

M ARCH 5, 2015

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


39/53

APPENDIX


40/53

APPENDIX

LISTOFAMICICURIAE

AIDSLegalReferralPanel(ALRP)TheAIDSLegalReferralPanel(ALRP)providesle-

galservicestopeoplelivingwithHIV/AIDSintheSanFranciscoBayArea. ALRPiscommittedtoensuring

justice for our clients infacing discrimination. Sinceroughly80%ofALRP’s clientsareLGBT,discrimina-tionagainstLGBTpeopledirectlyimpactsourclients.

APIEqualityLA API EqualityLA is a coalition of organizations and

individuals who are committed to working in the Asian/PacificIslander(API)communityinthegreaterLos Angeles area for equal marriage rights and therecognition and fair treatment of LGBT familiesthrough community education and advocacy. APIEqualityLA recognizes that the long history of dis-crimination against the API community, especiallyCalifornia's history of antimiscegenation laws andexclusionary efforts targeted at Asian immigrants,parallelsthecontemporaryexclusionofgaysandlesbi-ansfrommarriage.

The Asian American Bar Association of theGreaterBayArea(AABA)

TheAsianAmericanBarAssociationoftheGreaterBayArea(AABA)isoneofthelargestAsianAmericanbarassociations in thenation andone of the largestminority bar associations in the State of California.From its inception in 1976, AABA and its attorneys

(1a)


41/53

2a

havebeenactively involvedincivil rights issuesandcommunity service. AABAmembers filed an amicusbriefinthe Bakke affirmativeactioncase,fileda suc-cessful petition overturning the conviction of FredKorematsu in the landmark Korematsu v. United

States case, worked on the successful campaign toreleaseCholSooLeefromprison,andwereinvolvedineffortstoreleaseWenHoLeeandtounsealdocumentsinhiscase.

The Asian Pacific American Bar Association ofLosAngelesCounty(APABALA)

TheAsianPacificAmericanBarAssociationofLos AngelesCounty(APABALA)isamembershiporgani-

zationcomprisedofover700attorneys,judgesandlawstudents.Sinceitsformationin1998,APABALAhasadvocated onissuesthat impact the APAcommunityand has demonstrated a commitment to civil rights,racial justice,andequalopportunity. APABALAhas,andcontinuesto,opposeinitiativesdesignedtodepriveimmigrants, people of color, and other minorities oftheircivilrights,includinginitiativesthatdiscriminatebaseduponsexualorientation. APABALAstrivestoaddress all issues relevantto the equal treatment ofthoseintheAPAcommunity.

AtlantaBarAssociationThe Atlanta Bar Association has approximately

6,000 members and is interested in supporting thiseffort as a matter of justice.

AtlantaWomenforEquality AtlantaWomenforEqualityisanonprofitorganiza-

tiondedicatedtoprovidingfreelegaladvocacytowom-


42/53

3a

enandgirlsfacingsexdiscriminationintheworkplaceorschoolandtohelpingourcommunitybuildemploy-mentandeducationalenvironmentsaccordingtotruestandards ofequaltreatment. Our central goal istousethelawtoovercometheoppressivepowerdifferen-tialssociallypredeterminedgenderrolesimposeandtoempowerthosewhosufferadversetreatmentbecausetheydonotfitwithintheconfinesofsexbasedstereo-types. We believe that statutes banning samesexmarriageenforcepreciselythekindofgendercategori-zationthatunderminesthebasicprinciplesofequality,freedom,andjusticeitisourmissiontoserveandourConstitution’spurposetoprotect.

California Employment Lawyers Association(CELA)The California Employment Lawyers Association

(CELA) is an organization of approximately 1,200attorneyswhorepresentprimarilyplaintiffs intermi-nation,discrimination,wageandhour,civilrightsandothercivilcasesarisingintheworkplace.CELAhelpsits members protect and expand the legal rights ofworkingwomenandmenthroughlitigation,education,legislativeactivitiesandadvocacy.

Dallas Gay and Lesbian Bar Association(DGLBA)

The Dallas Gay and Lesbian Bar Association(DGLBA)iscomposedofapproximately35lawyers,lawstudents, paraprofessionals, and related professionalallieswhoshareaninterestinthelawsthataffectandprotect the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgenderedcommunity. TheDGLBAissuesamonthlynewslettertonearly200subscriberson currenttopicsof interest


43/53

4a

in LGBT law and the community and has over 800Facebookfollowers.TheDGLBAholdsmonthlylunch-eonmeetingsforitsmemberswherespeakersprovidecontinuing legaleducation on abroadrangeof topicsaffecting lawyers who represent LBGT clients. TheDGLBA also holds networking events, gives scholar-ships todeservinglawstudents,profilesitsmembersonitswebsite,andeducatesandpromoteslegalissuesaffectingtheLGBTcommunity.

GeorgiaAssociationforWomenLawyersThe Georgia Association for Women Lawyers’

(GAWL)missionistoenhancethewelfareanddevel-opmentofwomenlawyersandtosupporttheirinter-

ests.GAWL’sAmicusPolicyprovidesforfilingorjoin-ingamicusbriefsincaseswhichwilladvanceorclarifythelawregardingissuesthatfallwithinourmissionorthatrelatetotheadministrationofjustice. GAWLhasfoundthisbrief tofallwithin these categoriesand ispleasedtosupportthiseffort.

GeorgiaTrialLawyersAssociationPursuant to our constitution, the Georgia Trial

Lawyers Association is founded for the purpose ofsupportinganddefendingtheciviljustice system,the

righttotrialbyjury,andindividualrightsofourmem-bershipandourclients.

JapaneseAmericanBarAssociation(JABA)JapaneseAmericanBarAssociation(JABA)isoneof

the oldest AsianPacificAmerican bar associationsinthe country and consists of a diverse membershipofover300attorneys,judicialofficers,andlawstudentsofJapanese and Asian Pacific Islander ancestry in the


44/53

5a

greater Los Angeles area and beyond, including gayand lesbian individuals. With adeep appreciation oftheuniquehistoryofJapaneseAmericansintheUnit-edStatesandthe failureofconstitutionalprotectionsthat led to their internment during World War II,JABA has aproudhistoryofactivelyadvocatinganddevoting resources to issuesof civil rights and social

justice, especially for those members of society whocontinue to suffer from discrimination and unequaltreatment.

LGBT&AlliedLawyersofUtahBarAssociationLGBT&AlliedLawyersofUtahisanonprofitor-

ganizationofassociatedlegalprofessionalsandmem-

bers of theUtah State Bar, whosemission is to pro-moteeducation,advocacy,andequalitywithregardtosexualorientation,genderidentity,andgenderexpres-sion.

LGBTBarAssociationofGreaterNewYork(LeGaL)

The LGBT Bar Association of Greater New York(LeGaL)wasoneofthenation’sfirstbarassociationsofthelesbian,gay,bisexual,andtransgender legalcom-munityandremainsoneofthelargestandmostactive

organizations of itskind inthe country. Serving theNew York metropolitan area, LeGaL is dedicated toimprovingtheadministrationofthelaw,ensuringfullequality for members of the LGBT community, andpromoting the expertise and advancement of LGBTlegalprofessionals.


45/53

6a

Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of Chicago(LAGBAC)

The Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of Chicago(LAGBAC), founded in 1987, is one of the country’soldestbarassociationsdedicatedtoservingthelesbian,gay,bisexualandtransgender(LGBT)communityandtheonlybarassociationintheChicagolandareadedi-catedtoservingtheLGBTcommunity. LAGBACpro-

vides judges, attorneys and law studentswitheduca-tional experiencesand career opportunities that sup-port them throughout their career. LAGBAC hostscountless CLE seminars, networking programs andsocialeventsthroughouttheyearforitsmembersandnonmembers,alike.

With over 200 members, including practitioners,agencyheads,professors,andlawstudents,anddozensofjudicialaffiliates,LAGBAChaslongbeenaleaderinshapingpublicpolicyinIllinoisandacrossthecountry.We,theboardofdirectors,fullysupportthesubmissionof this amicus brief to further achieve the organiza-tion'smissionandtoprovidetheCourtwithimportantinsightonmattersaffectingpublicpolicy.

Lesbian and Gay Lawyers Association of Los Angeles(LGLA)

The Lesbian and Gay Lawyers Association of Los Angeles (LGLA) was foundedin1979andhasgrowninto a relevant, multicultural, open and active barassociation of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgenderlawyers, judges, law studentsand other legal Profes-sionals. LGLA isdedicatedto furthering justiceandequalityandtheadvancementofgay,lesbian,bisexualand transgender issues throughout California andaround the nation by making judicial endorsements,


46/53

7a

appearing amicus curiae in cases such as this one,holdingrepresentationontheConferenceofDelegatesfor the StateBar ofCalifornia, and providingeduca-tional and networkingopportunities for itsmembers.LGLAhasfoughtforequaljusticeforallpersonswith-out regard for theirsexual orientationfor morethanthirtyfiveyears.

Lesbian,Gay,Bisexual,AndTransgender(LGBT)BarAssociationOfMaryland

The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender(LGBT)BarAssociationofMarylandisastateassocia-tion of lawyers, judges and other legal professionals,law students, activists,andaffiliate lesbians, gay, bi-

sexual,andtransgenderlegalorganizations.

LoveHonorCherishLoveHonorCherish(LHC)isthelargestgrassroots

marriageequalityorganizationinSouthernCalifornia.Founded in May 2008 to defend the California Su-preme Court’sdecision In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.4th757(2008),LHChasstrategicallymovedmarriageequalityforwardsinceitsinception.In2010and2012,LHC launchedefforts togather signatures toput re-pealofProposition8ontheballotinCaliforniadueto

itsunwaveringdedicationtorestoremarriageequalityinCaliforniaassoonaspossible. While thoseeffortswereunsuccessfulduetotheprohibitivecostoffund-ingasignaturegatheringcampaign,LHC’svolunteershad more than one million conversations about theimportanceofmarriageequalitywithCaliforniavoters.LHCcontinuestoadvancemarriageequalitythroughpublic education, community empowerment and out-reachincollaborationitscoalitionpartners.


47/53

8a

MinnesotaLavenderBarAssociation(MLBA)TheMinnesotaLavenderBarAssociation(MLBA)is

avoluntaryprofessionalassociationofLGBTattorneysand allies, promoting fairness and equality for theLGBTcommunitywithinthelegalindustryandfortheMinnesotacommunity. TheMLBAenvisionsaMinne-sota where LGBT attorneys, clients, and communitymembersaretreatedequallyandwithoutdiscrimina-tion.TheMLBA’smissionis topromoteequalityand

justiceinthelegalprofessionandtheLGBTcommuni-tyinMinnesota.

NewMexicoLesbianAndGayLawyersAssocia-tion(NMLGLA)

TheNewMexicoLesbianandGayLawyersAssocia-tion(NMLGLA),formedin1995,isanonprofit,volun-tary bar organization committed to promoting andprotectingtheinterestofthelesbian,gay,bisexualandtransgenderlawyersandtoachievingtheirfullpartic-ipationinallrights,privilegesandbenefitsofthelegalprofession. TheNMLGLAalsostrivestopromotetheefficient administration of justice and the constantimprovementofthelaw,especiallyasitrelatestoles-bians,gaymen,bisexualandtransgenderindividuals.

NewYorkStateBarAssociationTheNewYorkStateBarAssociation(NYSBA)was

foundedin1876,andisthelargestvoluntarybarasso-ciation in the UnitedStates, with over 74,000 mem-bers.NYSBAservestheprofessionandthepublicby,interalia,promotingreforminthelawandfacilitatingthe administration of justice. NYSBA has long sup-ported marriage equality for samesex couples. In2009,NYSBApassedaresolutionsupportingsamesex


48/53

9a

marriage;andin2010theNYSBAwasaleadsponsoroftheAmericanBarAssociation’sresolutioninsupportofsamesexmarriage.TheNYSBAsupportsallowingsamesexcouplestomarryandrecognizingmarriagesifcontractedelsewhereastheAssociationbelievesonlymarriagecan grant full equality to samesex couplesandtheirfamilies.

OGALLA:TheLGBTBarAssociationofOregonTheLGBTBarAssociationofOregonisavoluntary

organization of legal practitioners – including attor-neys, judges,paraprofessionals,andeducators–dedi-catedtothepromotionofthefairandjusttreatmentofallpeopleunderthe lawregardlessofsexualorienta-

tion,genderidentity,orgenderexpression,toproviding visibilityforLGBTpersonsinthelaw,toeducatingthepublic,thelegalprofessionandthecourtsaboutlegalissuesofparticularconcerntotheLGBTcommunity,toidentifyingandeliminatingthecausesandconditionsof prejudice in society, and to promoting a spirit ofunity,whilevaluingthediversityofourcommunity.

PhilippineAmericanBarAssociationofLosAn-geles(PABA)

ThePhilippineAmericanBarAssociation(PABA)is

anorganizationofattorneys,students,andcommunityleaders who have been dedicated to advancing theinterestsoftheFilipinoAmericancommunityandthe

AsianAmerican communityatlarge for thirty years.PABAisferventlycommittedtocreatingamorecom-passionateand just future, and proudly joins its col-leaguesonthisamicusbrieftoensurethepreservationofequalityforpersonsfromeverywalkoflife.


49/53

10a

PublicCounselPublicCounsel isthe largest pro bono law firmin

the nation. Founded in 1970, Public Counsel is thepublic interest law office of the Los Angeles CountyandBeverlyHillsBarAssociationsand theSouthernCaliforniaaffiliateoftheLawyers’CommitteeforCivilRights Under Law. Public Counsel is dedicated toadvancing equal justice under law by delivering freelegal services to indigent and underrepresented chil-dren, adults and families throughout Los AngelesCounty,ensuringthatother communitybasedorgani-zationsservingthispopulationhavelegalsupport,andmobilizing the pro bono resources of attorneys, lawstudents and other professionals. Public Counsel’s

staffof71attorneysand50support staff,alongwithover5,000volunteerlawyers, law students,and legalprofessionals,assistsover30,000children,youth,fami-lies,andcommunityorganizationseveryyear.PublicCounsel’s clients include lesbian, gay, bisexual, andtransgenderyouthandadultswhoarehomelessoratrisk ofhomelessness orwho seekasylum in the U.S.becauseofpersecutionintheircountryoforigin. Asacivilrightsorganization,PublicCounselhassteadfast-lysupportedmarriageequality.

QLaw:TheGLBTBarAssociationofWashingtonQLaw,theGLBTBarAssociationofWashington,is

an association of gay, lesbian, bisexual, andtransgender (GLBT) legal professionals and theirfriends.QLawservesasavoiceforgay,lesbian,bisex-ual, and transgender lawyers and other legal profes-sionalsinthestateofWashingtononissuesrelatingtodiversity and equality in the legal profession, in thecourts,andunderthe law. Theorganizationhasfive


50/53

11a

purposes:toprovideopportunitiesformembersoftheGLBTlegalcommunitytomeetinasupportive,profes-sionalatmospheretoexchangeideasandinformation;tofurthertheprofessionaldevelopmentofGLBTlegalprofessionalsand lawstudents;toeducatethepublic,thelegalprofession,andthecourtsaboutlegalissuesofparticularconcerntotheGLBTcommunity;toem-powermembersoftheGLBTcommunitybyimprovingaccesstothelegalandjudicialsystemandsponsoringeducationprograms;andtopromoteandencouragetheadvancementoflesbian,gay,bisexual,andtransgenderattorneysinthelegalprofession.

Queen’sBenchBarAssociation

Queen’sBenchBar Association isanonprofitvol-untary membership organization made up of judges,lawyers, and law students in the San Francisco Bay

Area. Establishedin1921,Queen’sBenchisoneoftheoldest women’s bar associations in the country.Queen’sBenchseekstoadvancetheinterestsofwom-en in law and society, and to serve the professionalneeds of women lawyers, judges, and law students.Queen’sBenchhasastronganddemonstratedinterestinthepreservationoftheConstitutionalrighttoequalprotectionofthelaws.

San Francisco La Raza Lawyers Association(SFLRLA)

San Francisco La Raza Lawyers Association(SFLRLA) is a professional membership organizationofSanFranciscoBayAreaLatino/aattorneys.Centraltoitsmission isSFLRLA’sinterest inprotecting fun-damentalconstitutionalrightsandminorityinterests.

Accordingly, in March 2004, SFLRLA filed the first


51/53

12a

amicusbrieftobefiledbyabarassociationwiththeSan Francisco SuperiorCourt inwhateventually be-came In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.4th 757 (2008).SFLRLA’scoremission istoservethepublic interestbycultivating thescienceof jurisprudence,promotingreform in the law, facilitating the administration of

justice, and cooperating with other professional andcommunity organizations in the furtherance of ourmission.

StonewallBarAssociationofGeorgia,Inc.StonewallBar AssociationofGeorgia, Inc.was es-

tablished in 1995 as a coalition of attorneys, judges,lawstudents,paralegals,andotherlegalprofessionals

toutilizetheirexpertisetosupporttherightsoflesbi-an, gay,bisexual, and transgenderpeople and opposediscriminationbasedonsexualorientationandgenderidentity. A voluntary bar association, consisting ofalmost 300 duespaying members, SBA publishes anonlinedirectory of attorneys whoare eager to servegay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender clients. Theorganizationalsopublishesamonthlynewsletterthatis emailed to approximately 800 legal professionals,providesscholarshipstolawstudents,conductscontin-uingeducationforattorneys,andprovides opportuni-

tiesfornetworkingwithjudgesandotherlegalprofes-sionals. SBAhasworkedwithotherorganizationstofileamicusbriefsincasesthatimpactourcommunityinGeorgia. Suchbriefshavebeensubmitted in Hol-lingsworth v. Perry andcasesthatoverturnedGeorgia’ssodomy law and secured the rights of local govern-mentsandprivatecorporationstoofferdomesticpart-nership benefits tocompanyemployeesand their lifepartners.


52/53

13a

Stonewall Law Association of Greater Houston(SLAGH)

StonewallLawAssociationofGreaterHoustonisa voluntary professional association of gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender attorneys, judges, paralegals,lawstudentsandallieswhoprovideaLGBTpresencewithinthegreaterHoustonlegalcommunity.SLAGHencouragesthe recognitionofcivilandhuman rights,promotes sensitivity to legal issues faced by LGBTcommunityandthoselivingwithHIV,assuresthefairandjusttreatmentofmembersoftheLGBTcommuni-ty,providesopportunities forLGBTattorneys, judges,law students and their allies to interact ina profes-

sionalsetting,buildsallianceswithotherminoritybarassociationsandlegalorganizations,andenhancesthepractice and professional expertise of lawyers whoserveoraremembersoftheLGBTcommunity.

TomHomannLGBTLawAssociation(THLA)TheTomHomannLGBTLawAssociation(THLA)is

anonprofitvoluntarymembershipbar association ofattorneys,lawstudents,judges,andotherlegalprofes-sionals dedicated to the advancement ofgay, lesbian,bisexualandtransgenderissuesthroughoutCalifornia

andthenation. WearetheplaceforSanDiego’sLGBTlawyers to network, build friendships, and developtheircareers. THLAmembersarealso committed toestablishing and maintaining personal connectionswithlocal law studentcommunity. Throughour suc-cessful mentor program, we provide encouragement,guidance,insightandfriendshiptothenextgenerationofLGBTlawyersenteringtheSanDiegolegalcommu-nity.


53/53

14a

Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles(WLALA)

Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles(WLALA) is a nonprofit organization comprised pri-marilyofattorneysandjudgesinLosAngelesCounty.Founded in 1919, WLALA is dedicated to promotingthe fullparticipationofwomenlawyersandjudgesinthe legalprofession, maintaining the integrity of ourlegal system byadvocatingprinciples of fairnessandequality, and improving the status of women in oursociety. WLALA believes that lawyer groups have aspecialobligationtoprotectthecoreguaranteesofourConstitutionfromunlawfulabrogationwhenamajori-

tyofvotershasattemptedtodepriveaminorityofitsconstitutionallyprotectedrights.

14-556 bay area lawyers for individual freedom

Documents